Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I hatge this response and it shows a complete and utter ignorance.

"Amazon does it so Apple Can too!"

how about..

"Apple does it so Amazon does?"

whatch the responses. "copying" to "evil" will be the response

a logical fallacy known as "tu Quoque". or literally translated to "You Too". an attempt to shift the attention of the argument off Apple's problems by pointing out Amazon's.

At no point have anyone else in this thread said how amazon operates is much better. it's different, but it too has it's share of significant legal / business issues.

drop the discussion on amazon, and lets bring it back to Apple's business practices.

It could be that they are comparing it to other business models and saying it could be a standard business practice among many corporations.

While you make not like that comparison does not mean its not just as relevant in some cases.

Any store front, physical or virtual will have some advantages over its products it sells or even its own branded products in its own store.

Just like a competing product will have some advantages outside the iOS store such as Spotify.
 
You made an analogy that isn't identical, yet you suggested it was equivalent.

Reread the post by Renzatic

Walmart taking 95% of your profits, forcing you to raise prices while they successfully undercut you with their own product

Walmart takes commission for selling your product, forcing you to raise prices while they successfully undercut you with their own product.
Amazon takes commission for selling your product, forcing you to raise prices while they successfully undercut you with their own product (AmazonBasics)

Gee, that's similar, if not, equivalent.

And also, when did I ever say Amazon was never investigated?
 
Last edited:
At no point have anyone else in this thread said how amazon operates is much better. it's different, but it too has it's share of significant legal / business issues.

Renzatic brought up Walmart which then I brought up a good point with Amazon as a similarity. So he's in the clear for bringing up Walmart, but Amazon shouldn't be brought up? Ok, makes complete sense.
 
Last edited:
Democracy does not work with a independently run business, nor should it. You vote with your wallet and you can decide what product is right for you instead of trying to make a company bend to your will at any cost. While Apples products may not be what your looking for, Apple products work for millions of other consumers.

There's still the balance of consumer rights versus business/corporate rights and that DOES concern democracy and that's why you're wrong. Whether something "works" or not has not a damn thing to do with anything. Slavery worked for millions of "consumers" too with cheaper products from free labor but that didn't make it right. By your logic, democracy should keep its hands out of pesky things like people's "rights" and leave businesses alone no matter what to maximize profits. To that I say bullcrap.

IMHO:

Corporations should be subject to the exact same rules and laws as, if not more restrictive rules and laws than citizen. they should be held to strict socially responsible rules.

Corporations are here to serve humanity. They're here to create goods and services that benefit PEOPLE first.

I wish that were true, LordVic, but clearly all too many have other ideas about corporations and think they're SOLE PURPOSE is to make MONEY *at all costs* for the shareholders. "Good" doesn't come into the equation. Morals don't come into the equation. It's ALL about GREED. Sadly, this isn't constructive for humanity in general in the long run. We are heading back towards the Middle Ages in terms of workers rights, pay, etc. in many countries as unions are broken up and Corporations are deemed to have the same rights as people and can spend unlimited money to fix elections (thank you Supreme Court idiots) so that Corporations control EVERYTHING.

When did this reverse mindset come in where corporations come first before the rights and benefit of individuals? why has the US system allowed Corporations and their interests to be so tightly melded with that of governing?

It's been a fight since the first corporations began and the first monopolies took over entire industries. Thankfully, some people with spines fought it and brought about anti-trust laws in the US and laws to protect workers rights and to have a safe environment and not force children to work, etc. Sadly, many of those laws are being constantly chipped away at and much work is outsourced offshore where there are no such protections. This defeats the point of it all and starts dragging us back into the darkness. People should be worth more than just their ability to shovel coal for minimum wage (many want to eliminate the minimum wage so they can pay EVEN LESS, which isn't hard to do when so many are out of work and illegals have always been willing to work for less (which is still more than many of their own countries will pay, sadly). Some don't believe in a God. Others must think His name is Mamon. Either way, it's a sad state of affairs that mankind cannot progress much beyond the level of animals over thousands of years. Our technology has improved, but our souls are sorely lacking in any kind of growth. Just look at how many are terribly upset about others rights to live their own lives and get married. It's the human way to want to FORCE your beliefs upon others and/or bend them to your will even when it doesn't affect you one bit. Whether you agree about such things is irrelevant. My rights should end where yours begin and vice versa, but that's not good enough for most. They want their will to be forced upon everyone else. Many want those not willing to believe what they believe killed in many parts of the world. It's sad, but it's been true for thousands of years.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: trifid
No, I don't, and I don't think anyone does, but forcing a company which has built it's empire on building hardware and software that work together exclusively is completely absurd.

No one is asking Apple to support companies that want to use or allow OSX to be installed on their hardware. I simply want them to stop suing them for offering it. In other words, we already have a Hackintosh system out there. I'm saying 3rd party generic PC makers should simply be able to configure their computers to run OSX and Apple should offer it for sale separately for those that have hardware NEEDS that Apple doesn't address. I've always preferred OSX to Windows, but Apple doesn't always offer suitable hardware for my needs and it gets to be ridiculous that I can't get a decently configured Macintosh computer. I bought this 2012 Mac Mini and while I would have preferred a better GPU, it was still a reasonable offering. Look at the 2014 offering. They improved the GPU, but they KILLED the rest of the computer to be a dual-core i5 at best and no ability to get dual-drives any longer and made it extremely difficult to upgrade the drives and/or ram by soldering things directly, etc. They had no other motivation except to make your Mac OBSOLETE the day you bought it. When they offer such GARBAGE, I should have an alternative available to me. I bought my software libraries for the Mac and therefore it's not as simple as just "switching" to Windows to get better hardware. Apple takes advantage of people switching FROM Windows by offering compatibility with Windows, but they don't want to reciprocate for people wanting to switch from the Mac to Windows by allowing OSX to run virtually on a Windows machine even with licensed copies, etc. (like the one you already got with your last Mac that you should be able to use to transition back to Windows when Apple utterly FAILS to meet your needs in hardware or software terms).

Like other posters have pointed out, the opportunity is still there to build an alternative OS which can run on a variety of hardware on the market, but Win-tel really soured the pudding for that scheme. It's a big bag to haul. Apple's not forcing anyone to use their system, and anyone is free to sell a competing one.

That's a really horrible argument and I think you know it. It's not even remotely realistic at this stage of the game for ANYONE to offer an alternative to Windows that isn't based on something pre-existing like UNIX or LINUX. It took LINUX over 20 years to get where it's at today and I dare say it's STILL not comparable to OSX or Windows from ten years ago in terms of the user experience. It takes DECADES to get an OS to modern standards. Things like Android would not exist today if it weren't for Linux, for example. More to the point, having a new and different operating system will not get my existing software libaries working. We have VMware that is 100% capable of running OSX virtually on any generic PC hardware, but Apple's license and license ALONE prevents you from being able to run it on a PC to facilitate moving to that system. Apple helps you move Windows software over to your Mac, though. It's not exactly a quid pro quo system there.

Oh, wait, I forgot, software is supposed to be free, like music.

I've never suggested either one should be free. I've suggested I should be free to install OSX on other hardware if Apple refuses to offer hardware that meets my needs. The thing is that their hardware is nothing more than GENERIC PC HARDWARE with fancy cases and THAT is why they should not be able to TIE their OS to only their hardware. If they had custom hardware it might be different, but it's vanilla PC stuff which is why it's so easy to make a Hackintosh.
 
  • Like
Reactions: trifid
I think magnus, that why a lot of people defend the "corporations should be free to do wwhat they want and should only answer to profits" is because of the so called "american dream".

its the belief that they're the next CEO. They're going to be the next multi-millionaire. They'll be the next jobs, or the next gates. So, damn everyone else, because WHEN I GET MY BREAK I DON'T WANT TO BE LIMITED!

What they don't realize is that this isn't what happens. it's very rare. it's a couple people a generation. So these few people are making trillions, while the rest, 99.9% of the people of society make very little in comparison.

but it's ok. They're OK being the 99.9% FOR NOW! cause, they're just one idea away from moving on up!

sadly, this isn't truth, nor backed in any factual information. it's purely rhetoric.
 
Has anyone considered the fact that it makes Apple look bad when a customer realizes they've been getting ripped off paying a 30% monthly premium that a pure rip off and has nothing of value? I'm not sure if it's happened, but I could see people calling and demanding refunds for the ridiculous premium when they realize what happened.

If we see this as purely from a greed/company profits filter, Apple's brand image and reputation is being put at risk here. Things that affect brand image and customer trust in your brand surely can't be good for profits/shareholders right?
 
Has anyone considered the fact that it makes Apple look bad when a customer realizes they've been getting ripped off paying a 30% monthly premium that a pure rip off and has nothing of value? I'm not sure if it's happened, but I could see people calling and demanding refunds for the ridiculous premium when they realize what happened.

If we see this as purely from a greed/company profits filter, Apple's brand image and reputation is being put at risk here. Things that affect brand image and customer trust in your brand surely can't be good for profits/shareholders right?

maybe most apple customers have it in their mind that apple charges more for everything and in this exact case, they might not look at apple with anything greater than a roll-eyes and instead will look at spotify "why t f didn't you tell us this before?!?" (while most people wouldn't be aware that one of the main reasons spotify hasn't told them before was because apple doesn't let them from within the app)..

to many people, i would imagine spotify looks as bad as or worse than apple in this situation.. to me, the mass email sent out by spotify is incredibly gutsy and a bit desperate feeling.. or- apple may have already landed a fatal blow to spotify whose results will likely be way profitable beyond any penalties/fines which may come of an antitrust investigation.

unless the feds decide to fine apple 10 billion dollars or smthng. (veryveryvery unlikely)
 
maybe most apple customers have it in their mind that apple charges more for everything and in this exact case, they might not look at apple with anything greater than a roll-eyes and instead will look at spotify "why t f didn't you tell us this before?!?" (while most people wouldn't be aware that one of the main reasons spotify hasn't told them before was because apple doesn't let them from within the app)..

to many people, i would imagine spotify looks as bad as or worse than apple in this situation.. to me, the mass email sent out by spotify is incredibly gutsy and a bit desperate feeling.. or- apple may have already landed a fatal blow to spotify whose results will likely be way profitable beyond any penalties/fines which may come of an antitrust investigation.

unless the feds decide to fine apple 10 billion dollars or smthng. (veryveryvery unlikely)

I really don't see how Spotify can look bad at all here, they are the victim. Anyone looking into this will find out about Apple's outdated/inappropriate 30% premium on monthly subscriptions to 3rd party's and their censorship policies, and given this information it's clear Spotify has few viable options if any.
 
Anyone looking into this will find out about Apple's outdated/inappropriate 30% premium on monthly subscriptions to 3rd party's and their censorship policies, and given this information it's clear Spotify has few viable options if any.

i don't disagree with that at all.
but the first few words 'anyone looking into this' are key.. how many affected people will look into this? 1%? 3%?
 
You will have a hard time convincing me that iOS is a monopoly just because Apple owns the product line. Mobile is just one of many platforms Spotify competes upon. The user can still signup on the web if they want a cheaper price.
I was not trying to convince anybody...I was just suggesting what reasons may have convinced someone over at the ftc that an investigation may be worthwhile...
 
i don't disagree with that at all.
but the first few words 'anyone looking into this' are key.. how many affected people will look into this? 1%? 3%?

and thats why Apple 's strategy works wonderful with their services and devices.

"it just works" isn't a moto they took lightly. If you don't need your consumers to think about where their money is going when they purchase something, they're just not going to care. in the end, all they see is that Apple Music is 9.99, and spotify is 12.99 through in-app purchases.

They're going to buy the 9.99 subscription. its a simple matter of dollar. cause you're right, most people aren't going to go "Well, WHY is spotify more expensive". they're just going to close the app and go look at Apple Music.

Most people just aren't going to care.
 
Does Spotify allow free streaming over the iOS app now?

But still, can you give a good reason why Apple should charge 30% of a monthly subscription for the life of the account just to run their payment processing? I know it's not the hardest thing in the world for people to hop over to the website instead of signing up in the app, but the question is...why should they?
30% just for payment processing is one thing. I do think after 3 months Apple should drop the rate down to 5% TBQH or nothing at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost
There's still the balance of consumer rights versus business/corporate rights and that DOES concern democracy and that's why you're wrong. Whether something "works" or not has not a damn thing to do with anything. Slavery worked for millions of "consumers" too with cheaper products from free labor but that didn't make it right. By your logic, democracy should keep its hands out of pesky things like people's "rights" and leave businesses alone no matter what to maximize profits. To that I say bullcrap.

Democracy does not give consumers the right to force companies to change their products into anything they want. Thats not how democracy works. ( Like forcing Apple to allow its operating system on to other hardware )

I simply want them to stop suing them for offering it. In other words, we already have a Hackintosh system out there. I'm saying 3rd party generic PC makers should simply be able to configure their computers to run OSX and Apple should offer it for sale separately for those that have hardware NEEDS that Apple doesn't address.

That wont work on three fronts:

1.) Mac OSX only works on a limited amount of hardware. It was designed that way to make it more stable. Microsoft has to support thousands of different hardware combinations. Trying to put Apples OS on hardware you deem more worthy might not be supported by the the OS resulting in a more buggy system.

2.) People making mackintoshes was one thing. Selling them at a profit at the expense of Apples hard work is another. It was rightly won in court ( Yes, your democracy at work you so highly prize. )

3.) They tried licensing out their OS to other manufactures which simply under cut them in price that also devalued their own brand. Apple wants to be associated with premium products. Putting Mac OSX on budget line of computers that are not up to Apples quality standards devalues it.

Also why should other manufactures have to use Mac OSX? Can't they simply make their own OS like Apple has done?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AdonisSMU
The "free market" has ALWAYS been a government created and regulated entity. Without government intervention and control the supposed free-market would never exist. People need to stop listening to their favorite half wit political commentators and teach themselves the basics of economics before posting about things they do not understand.

A corporation, like the government, is just another large entity. And like the government, it needs its checks and balances to ensure that it does not grow too powerful, where it can then abuse that power. Capitalism run amok can result in monopolies, which destroys the principle of competition and choice.

Over the decades, we've seen what happens when one company dominates the market, whether that be IBM, Microsoft, Quark, Adobe -- and, yes, Apple has certainly been guilty for throwing its weight around. Not always for nefarious reasons, but Apple has not been above arrogance in the past.

I'm very happy to see that Apple is doing very well for itself, and it has earned that success with wonderful products. Instead of just sitting on top of a mountain of money, they have chosen to invest that money into their future (new campus, renewable energy). For a public company whose top priority should be appeasing the shareholders, Apple has gone far beyond just making money, and trying to do things which actually matter and make a difference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rp2011
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.